• Rezultati Niso Bili Najdeni

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPEN INNOVATION MODEL APPLICATION IN SLOVENIAN FIRMS – SAM, The Slovenian Academy of Management

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPEN INNOVATION MODEL APPLICATION IN SLOVENIAN FIRMS – SAM, The Slovenian Academy of Management"

Copied!
11
0
0

Celotno besedilo

(1)

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPEN INNOVATION MODEL APPLICATION IN SLOVENIAN FIRMS

Daša Farčnik

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

dasa.farcnik@ef.uni-lj.si

Tjaša Redek

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

tjasa.redek@ef.uni-lj.si

Abstract

This paper analyses the characteristics of the model of open innovation in Slovenia. On the basis of activities that are defined by the model of open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) 222 companies are divided into three groups : companies that do not apply open innovation activities, companies with limited scope of activities of open innovation and com- panies engaged in the majority of open innovation activities. Three groups of firms also differ with regard to the or- ganizational structure, attitude of staff and management towards the open innovation activities, expenditures for research and development and success of the introduction of new products, process innovation and success of these products and services on the market. Analysis combines the dominant model of innovation model with the open in- novation model. Further on it is encouraging that all three groups do not differ regarding their future plans of intro- ducing the model of open innovation activities.

Keywords:innovation, open innovation model, innovation success

1. INTRODUCTION

The model of open innovation, according to Chesbrough (2006) represents the opposite of the classical understanding of development and inno- vation in enterprises. The classic definition of inno- vation assumes that the development of ideas and new products takes place within the company, which then produces and market them. In contra- diction to prevailing traditional or »vertical« para- digm of innovation, the model of open innovation builds on the inflow and outflow of both internal and external elements in the creation of ideas and products, and then, when the product is designed,

the marketing also focuses on the internal and ex- ternal elements (Chesbrough, 2004, 2006). The boundaries of the company in a model of open in- novation are not clearly defined, but the model as- sumes flow of information internally and externally.

The porosity of the borders, which is actually inten- tional, is also one of the key elements of the model, as it allows development on the basis of internal and external information, ideas and knowledge, but also allows the transfer of ideas, information and knowledge externally.

Slovenia, as a small and open economy, in which exports account for over three quarters of GDP is strongly integration into international pro- duction chains and adopted the export-oriented

Vol. 4, No. 1, 61-71 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2015.v04n01a05

(2)

growth model (SORS, 2014). GDP at purchasing power parity in Slovenia currently reaches 82 per- cent of the average EU28 and is classified as the under-developed state. The economy can on still grow through the transfer of knowledge as well as lower factor costs, but to a lesser extent as before.

Thus, the innovativeness is crucial for the develop- ment of Slovenia. This has been confirmed by the World Economic Forum (2008) that since 2007 ranks Slovenia among the countries that grow through in- novation ("innovation-driven") and not among the countries that are growing due to increased effi- ciency ("efficiency driven"). This of course means that the country must still invest additional re- sources in development of its own innovative prod- ucts and services, which will be competitive on the global markets and at the same time it will increase the share of global value added. The openness of the economy and the integration into international production chains allows Slovenian companies ei- ther direct or indirect access to many sources of in- formation, new ideas and accumulated knowledge that can facilitate the development of new prod- ucts, services or enable process innovation. In addi- tion, inclusion in global value chains enables Slovenian companies also to provide it's knowledge within their chains and facilitate the development in partners and thus contribute to better or cheaper final products. These knowledge spill-overs are the central point of the model of open innovation, which is therefore seen as an extremely interesting concept for Slovenian companies.

The purpose of this paper is therefore to exam- ine the practice of the open innovation activities and link them to the prevailing model of innovation, in which the importance and organization of re- search and development department and the in- vestments in research and development is particularly emphasizes. The aim of this paper is to identify if the companies that implement more open innovation activities are also those companies that have already developed innovation activities.

Based on that, the Slovenian firms will be distrib- uted with regard to the intensity of the open inno- vation activities.

Based on a questionnaire from 222 Slovenian companies conducted in September 2012, using Ward's analysis of the groups, the companies are

initially divided into three groups based on the (in- tensity) of the activities of open innovation. Further on the differences in means of other innovation ac- tivities and elements of genetic material are com- pared with Tukey's method (Tukey, 1949). The contribution therefore provides one of the first pa- pers that links open innovation with a dominant model of innovation in enterprises and examines the within group differences in the product and process innovation success.

The paper is structured as follows: after the in- troduction, there are three chapters. The second chapter provides short description of the open in- novation model; the third describes the objectives of the paper, the data used and the methodology.

In chapter four the results are represented and the last chapter provides conclusions and discusses some practical recommendations.

2. THE OPEN INNOVATION MODEL

The literature on innovation is very broad and a large number of definitions of, innovation models, as well as models of the impact of innovation on the economy in the broadest sense innovation have been developed. Starting from the current definition of innovation as applied by the Community Innova- tion Survey, the main international research in the field of innovation, innovations are divided into product or process innovations, whereby both new or significantly improved product (or service) as well as the process (production, support services, distri- bution, etc..) are an innovation if a product or process represent both novelty to the firm, but not necessarily for the market (Eurostat, 2012). Innova- tion depends on many factors and over time the focus has shifted from one to the other factor. Based on the innovation literature review Damanpour (1991), for example, found that the authors expose the whole multitude of factors that account to over 10. In theory key determinants of innovation in the company should be then, specialization, centraliza- tion, management attitudes toward changes, profes- sionalism, centralisation, functional differentiation, management stability, technological competence (in original technological knowledge), the availability of free resources, company’s organization, organiza-

(3)

tional structure and internal as well as external com- munication and information flow. Damanpour has also reviewed the literature that began to focus on the wider importance of other (soft/intangible ) fac- tors, such as the internal organization in the broad- est sense) and external factors (see eg. The Von Hippel, 1988, which inter alia highlights the impor- tance of the consumer).

ders are purposive and the knowledge flows inward and outward. This two-way flow is the core of the model of open innovation summarized in Figure 1.

The model of open innovation is particularly important for Slovenia, because of the openness of the economy and therefore intensive integration into the world economy. According to the Statistical Figure 1: The open innovation model

Source: Adopted by Chesbrough, 2006, figure 1.2.

Chesbrough (2003) combined a combination of factors that are both external and internal in a com- prehensive model of open innovation. The model emphasizes that the ideas for innovation are cre- ated in the company itself but also the business en- vironment can serve as an important source of ideas or as an external technological knowledge base (Fig- ure 1). At the same time the company can influence the innovation activity of other companies, if parts of its knowledge and information are available also externally (eg. intellectual property out-licensing, selling unused or unutilized, free dissemination of knowledge). By definition (Chesbrough, 2003) the model of open innovation builds on both the inflows and outflows of knowledge with a purpose to pro- mote and strengthen innovation activity in the en- terprise and the same time the opening of 'market' for outdoor use of new products / services. The company therefore acts as an agent that combines ideas, knowledge and technology. Traditionally, companies preferred to draw inward knowledge and not to provide or "give" it to the outside, but based on the open innovation model the company's bor-

Office (SURS, 2015), exports to the EU (mostly in Germany) represented 79 percent in 2013 and im- ports from EU represented almost three-quarters of all imports.

Openness of the economy also means that Slovenian companies have access to the latest ideas and knowledge, which is directly relevant to ex- porters, and firms can also draw ideas and knowl- edge from importing. This fosters learning, which is one of the key factors in the growth of export - ori- ented economies (Helpman et al., 2004; Stiglitz and Greenwald, 2014). Companies with open borders can therefore transfer the knowledge through sup- ply chain to the other domestic companies. The question of course is how intensely companies are aware of the opportunities and to what extent the companies draw or share knowledge and informa- tion. This area of study in Slovenia is studied to a limited extent. The link between companies and learning has been studied by Prašnikar et al. (2012) and the model of open innovation has been also studied by Rangus and Drnovšek (2013), Rangus (2014) and Pustovrh (2014).

(4)

Previous research on the use of open innovation model show that, on average, Slovenian companies are aware of the potential of open innovation model, but are currently focusing primarily on the inflow of information and knowledge (inbound activities) and not on outflow activities (outbound activities). This means that the model is not applied fully, which in particular means that the national economy has not achieved the desired or potential knowledge spill- overs between firms yet (Farčnik, Redek and Trobec, 2014). However, Slovenian companies can be divided into several groups with regard to activities in the field of open innovation (Ranugs, 2014).1Prašnikar et al. (2012) further finds that the learning of com- panies is often the result of external factors, in par- ticular the cooperation with companies in the value chain, suppliers and customers and the absorption of ideas from the competition which therefore implies that these are the inbound activities of the open in- novation model. The use of information and knowl- edge is mainly dependent on firm’s genetic material (competences, abilities, strategic orientation, work processes, inventory and human resource manage- ment, Nelson and Winter, 1982).

3. GOALS AND THE ME 3.1 Goals

The contribution builds on previous related re- search and connects the model of open innovation with the prevailing model of innovation, where re- search and development (R&D) departments, their organization and strategic position within the com- pany and the resources allocated to R&D are the key factors. Based on the company’s intensity of open in- novation activities the firms are distributed in groups and between groups differences in R&D activities are investigated. The main research question is, whether the companies that largely implement open innova- tion activities are the ones that have already devel- oped R&D activities in general (the R&D activities that are included in the prevailing model of innova- tion). In addition we disentangle the innovation suc- cess in success related to the product innovation and

the success related to the process innovation, while most of the research so far has focused only on prod- uct innovation. By linking concepts of genetic mate- rial (Nelson and Winter, 1982) and innovation, we also shed some light on the importance of the orga- nizational structure of the company, employee rela- tionships, management support and openness of the organization for innovation activity in the company.

3.2 Data

As part of the international project " Open In- novation Network " and with the cooperation of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia an international survey on the open innovation prac- tices defined by the model of open innovation (Ches- brough, 2003) was sent to the members of the Chamber (owners or managers or heads of develop- ment ) in September 2014. The questionnaire in- cluded the assessment of the implementation of the open innovation practices, future plans regarding the application of open innovation practices and the organisational characteristics. In addition, questions regarding the mainstream R&D activities were added (Redek et al., 2010; Prašnikar, ed., 2010, Prašnikar et al., 2011). Data was collected for 222 companies, which on average employ of 69 workers.

Model of open innovation includes the follow- ing activities: (1) customer and consumer co-cre- ation in R&D projects; (2) crowd sourcing, (3) scanning for external ideas, (4) collaborative inno- vation with external partners (i.e. suppliers, univer- sities, competitors…), (5) subcontracting R&D, (6) idea & start up competitions, (7) using external net- works (e.g. associations, intermediaries, knowledge brokers), (8) participation in standardization (public standards) / influencing industry standards, (9) free revealing (e.g. Ideas, IP) to external parties, (10) IP in-licensing, (11) IP out-licensing, (12) external tech- nologies acquisition, (13) selling unutilized / unused technologies. The intensity of the implementation of certain activities were captured using an 8- point scale (1 -not performed, 2 - very rarely performed and 8 - very intense performed). Respondents plans

1 Based on the open innovation activities Rangus (2013) classifies companies into four groups, namely open innova- tors who carry out all the activities of open innovation; systems engineering companies or solution implementers that are using all activities except renting R&D, R&D outsourcers and customer oriented companies.

(5)

for changes in the intensity of the implementation of the above activities were described using a five- point scale (2 - significant reduction, 0 – unchanged, 2 - a significant increase).

Other information on companies’ innovation activities were collected based on the questionnaire from Redek et al. (2010). The questionnaire covered the performance characteristics of the R&D depart- ment (if there is one, what are its functions), infor- mation on the amount of R&D expenditure and the importance and perception of the role of R&D spending in terms of strengthening competitive ad- vantages. Respondents also provided information on the success of the introduction of different types of process and product innovation and characteris- tics (innovativeness) of both types of innovation.

Respondents also provided a lot of information about the company. Based on a 7-point scale (1 - completely disagree, 7 completely agree), we have analysed the organizational structure, employee re- lations, management support of the R&D activities and openness of the organization. In that manner the education and training of employees on open inno- vation, employees’ perceptions on the introduction of new ideas and technologies, employees’ reward system for outstanding innovation, management support for open innovation, openness of the firm’s borders, the participation of employees in the search for information and knowledge and in the exchange of knowledge , design of organizational structure in line with the needs of the model of open innovation, and the introduction of interactive tools and meth- ods for participating in open innovation.

3.3 Goals and the methodology

The model of open innovation shall encourage innovation activity in enterprises because it allows a faster flow of information and learning, but also has a beneficial effect on other businesses and therefore on the long term also promotes innova- tion. Regarding the analysis of the implementation of the open innovation activities in Slovenian firms, we formed the following research questions:

1) What are the differences in the implementation of each activity of the model of open innovation in Slovenian companies?

2) Is there a link between the intensity of each ac- tivity of the model of open innovation and in- novation activities of the company in general and its performance success?

3) Is there a link between the intensity of each ac- tivity of the model of open innovation and atti- tude toward the innovation of the company itself?

In order to answer the research questions, we first distribute firms regarding the intensity of the open innovation activities and second we check for the between groups differences. Based on the thir- teen questions on the intensity of the activities de- fined by the model of open innovation, companies are classified into three groups with Ward's method of cluster analysis. The method is particularly suit- able for ordinal responses it forms groups on the basis of n groups of size 1. On the basis of minimiz- ing the sum of squares and loss of information three groups were selected.

For companies classified in each group the mean values of other variables are calculated. Dif- ferences in mean values were calculated on the basis of the Tukey’s method of comparison that si- multaneously performs pair-wise comparison (Tukey, 1949) and not all the group means at once, such as the classic analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Below we present the differences between the av- erage values of the two groups at least at the 5% sig- nificance level. If the difference is statistically significant between all the clusters, the significance level is described by the star next to the result. If one cluster statistically significantly differs from the other two, the significance level is assigned only to the result of that cluster.

4. RESULTS 4.1 Clustering

By using Ward's clustering method companies are classified into three groups. The first group are companies that do not or very rarely implement the activities defined in the open innovation model and present 19.4 percent of the sample (40 companies).

The second group of 83 companies (40.3 percent of the sample) is characterized by a limited extent

(6)

and/or less frequently performance open innova- tion activities. The third group with also 83 firms consists of companies that to a greater extent than the second group of companies perform all these activities and in accordance to the literature (eg . Chesbrough, 2003 Rangus, 2014) can be described as "open innovators".

a confirmative answer for the particular category or R&D characteristic. Only 3 percent of companies in the first cluster have organized R&D department, the share of those is 20 percent second cluster, and 51 percent in the third cluster. In the third cluster of firms – the firms that are open innovators, the R&D department is statistically significantly more present

Regarding the future plans of the application of open innovation activities, there is no significant dif- ference between groups. This means that, on aver- age, companies that do not currently apply open innovation activities or apply then to a limited ex- tent, they intend to increase the application in the future.

4.2 Open innovation and the R&D

The three clusters of vary according to having a R&D department and its role in the company. Table 1 shows the shares of companies that are provided

than in the other two groups (see significance next to the result for the third cluster) and provides sys- tematic support for solving problems arising in the company. In the companies in the third cluster the R&D department also provides an absorption capac- ity of the collection, storage and dissemination of technological information, it sets guidelines for the technological development of the company, and plays the role of an agent of change. To a lesser ex- tent, unlike companies that do not carry out activi- ties open innovation, the R&D department is important for the formation of independent indus- trial design capabilities.

Figure 2: Average values of the frequency of using open innovation activities for clusters of firms

Note: IP means intellectual property Source: Own research, 2014.

(7)

Table 2 shows the difference between clusters on R&D expenditures and the role of the expendi- tures for the future development of the firm.

Open innovators (firms in the third cluster) on average spend a higher proportion of revenues on R&D, but also have different attitudes to these ex- penditures. Almost two-thirds of these firms do not consider R&D expenditures merely as a cost, but they represent an important facilitator of innovation and represent a source of competitive advantage and thus growth. Consequently, the R&D expendi- tures have a strategic importance for the company.

Regarding the importance or the role of the R&D ex- penditures we also find different treatments be- tween cluster 1 and 2. Companies in the second companies (ie companies that to a limited extent carry out activities identified by the model of open innovation), on average, more often consider R&D expenditures as a source of competitive advantage and believe they represent a strategic importance for the firm.

4.3 Between cluster difference in the success in product and process innovations

Companies in the first cluster are significantly less successful in introducing new products in the last five years since only a quarter of these compa- nies have introduced a new product that repre- sented a novelty in the relevant market. The share of successful firms in introducing new projects in the second cluster is in 51%, and 64 % in the third. At the same time, fewer companies (23%) in the first cluster have introduced new products that were new on the relevant market they supply, compared to companies in the second cluster (44%) and in the third group (52%). However, we find no statistically significant differences between companies in the second and third clusters, which means, that the frequency of open innovation activities does not sig- nificantly affect the success of the introduction of new products. However, the differences between the moderate innovators open (cluster 2) and open innovators (cluster 3) mainly occur when introduc- Table 1: R & D characteristics by clusters, as a % of all companies the cluster

R&D in the company

Systematic support of the R&D department

R&D dep. builds the abortion capacity

R&D dep. sets the guidelines

Industrial design in R&D dep.

Cluster 1 2.7% 11.8% 2.9% 5.7% 0.0%

Cluster 2 20.3% 29.7% 17.7% 17.2% 12.7%

Cluster 3 50.6% * 54.9% * 47.9% * 43.5% * 24.3% a

Table 2: R&D expenditures for clusters of firms, as a % of all companies the cluster At least 1%

of revenues for R&D

More than 3%

of revenues for R&D

R&D expenditures not considered entirely as a cost

R&D expenditures are a competitive advantage

Strategic importance of R&D expenditures

Cluster 1 16.7% * 2.8% 15.2% * 15.2% * 6.5% *

Cluster 2 46.2% 18.0% 42.9% 39.4% * 42.2% *

Cluster 3 55.2% 36.8% * 61.1% * 66.7% * 66.2% *

Notes: Data show the shares of companies with individual elements. * Denotes statistically different from the average value at the 5 % significance level. aindicates a statistically significant difference in the average value at the 5 % significance level only from the first cluster and not the second.

Source: Own research, 2014.

Notes: The data shows the percentage of firms that answered the questions with "Yes". * denotes statistically different value from the average value at the 5 % significance level.

Source: Own research, 2014.

(8)

ing new products, which are a novelty on the world market (not only on a local or regional). Thus, 35 percent of all open innovators have introduced a product that is new in the world, while the share of such companies in the second group statistically sig- nificantly lower (11%).

In terms of process innovation, companies that have not applied open innovation activies are on av- erage less successful than companies that are mod- erately or fully introduced the model. Only 13 percent of companies in the first cluster introduced process innovation in the last three years. The share of such firms was more than half (53%) in the second cluster and 71 percent in third cluster. Similarly, the companies in the first cluster, to a lesser extent sig- nificantly improved production processes of goods and services, and processes of logistics, delivery or distribution of elements, products and services. We find no statistically significant differences in terms of introducing process innovation between companies in the second and the third cluster.

4.4 Selected organizational characteristics of the clusters

Differences between firms in three clusters ac- cording to the selected organizational characteris- tics are shown in Table 3. On average, companies

vary in providing education and training on open in- novation and employee and management support for open innovation. Companies in the first cluster devote fewer resources to education and training on open innovation, as well as management support is smaller than in the second and third cluster. Oth- erwise, the firms in the first cluster significantly dif- fer from the other two clusters since they developed less positive attitude towards the introduction of new ideas and technologies and the use of knowl- edge and technology from the outside the borders of their own business. Given that these companies are on average not (yet) applying open innovation activities, employee remuneration in is smaller. As it has already been mentioned, the differences be- tween firms in cluster 2 which to a limited extent carry out activities of open innovation, and open in- novators (cluster 3) for the last three mentioned or- ganizational characteristics are not statistically significant.

Open innovators are more likely to encourage the active participation of employees in the search for knowledge, for what they have created interactive tools and methods for participating in the activities of open innovation. At the same time organizational structure is designed in accordance with the needs of the firm. The boundaries of these companies are more open and allow in/out-flow of knowledge. To a Table 3: Average values regarding the genetic material, by clusters

Education and training on open innovation

Positive attitude towards introduction of new ideas and technologies

Positive attitude towards application of knowledge and technology of other firms

Rewarding employees based on introduction of new ideas

Management support for open innovations

Cluster 1 3.2 * 4.2 * 4.0 * 3.4 * 4.1 *

Cluster 2 4.2 * 5.1 4.8 4.3 5.0 *

Cluster 3 5.1 * 5.5 5.0 4.6 5.6 *

Open borders of firm

Active participation of employees in knowledge formation

Organisation structure based on the innovation needs

Interactive tools and methods for OI participation

Cluster 1 4.0 * 3.3 * 3.8 * 3.1 *

Cluster 2 4.9 4.5 * 4.8 * 3.9 *

Cluster 3 5.4 5.5 * 5.0 * 4.8 *

Notes: The data show the average value on a scale from 1 - completely disagree and 7 - completely agree. * Denotes statistically different from the mean value of the 5 % confidence level.

Source: Own research, 2014.

(9)

lesser extent this applies to firms in the second clus- ter. Companies that do not implement open innova- tion activities, have on average more closed borders and of course less -developed tools and methods for participating in open innovation.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Using survey data of 222 Slovenian companies and using Ward's clustering method the firms are classified into three clusters as based on the appli- cation and frequency of open innovation activities.

First cluster represents the companies that (still) do not carry out open innovation activities, the second cluster are companies, which to a limited extent and / or less frequently use these activities, and in the third cluster are "open innovators " , that are com- panies that often use activities identified by the model of open innovation.

In the empirical exercise, we analyzed the rela- tionship between the several dimensions of innova- tion activities in general and open innovation activities, since based on the theory of innovations, the open innovation activities are related and influ- ence other innovation features. The data shows that companies that carry out activities identified by the model of open innovation, have on average also more likely developed R&D departments and the department has a strategic role in the company. This cluster of companies devotes a larger share of rev- enues to research and development. This implies that companies, which are otherwise active in the field of innovation, are also more active in the field of open innovation. The information and knowledge in these firms are obtained either within or outside the firm and are a source of competitive advantage.

However, the performance comparison between companies in the three groups shows that the differ- ences between the second and third group are small and insignificant, but companies in both groups more successful in product and process innovation

from the companies in the first group. "Open inno- vators" have also developed an appropriate organi- zational structure and encourage employee relations and support of the manaegemnt in order to support and promote the activities in the field of open innovation. Similarly, this also holds for the companies in the second group, particularly with re- gards to the attitude of employees and their remu- neration. This however is not true for companies in the first group.

The paper links the two models of innovation:

the dominant model, which is based primarily on the role of the R&D department, and a model of open innovation. The results show a clear link in the development of the R&D department and introduc- tion of the open innovation model. At the same time, we however find that with regard to the suc- cess in process and product innovation, all the open innovation activities are not directly necessary. We actually find that based on a sample of Slovenian companies, the open innovation model comple- ments dominant innovation model.

This paper offers several recommendations for managers of Slovenian companies. It is appropriate to complement the existing models of innovation with the open innovation model and opening firms’

borders. Companies that are constantly looking for ideas outside the company, cooperate with various stakeholders and allow outbound sharing of their knowledge, are on average more successful in intro- ducing new products that are not only new to the regional but also on the global market. Successful companies also have more developed R&D depart- ment, which has a strategic role in the company.

This might lead to a conclusion that the application of only the model of open innovation, does not offer gaining or maintaining competitive advantage. For a successful application the open innovation model the firm must adopt an adequate organizational structure, human resource management and man- agement support.

EXTENDED SUMMARY / IZVLEČEK

Model odprtih inovacij po besedah Chesbrougha (2006) predstavlja nasprotje klasičnemu razumevanju razvoja in in- oviranja v podjetjih. Klasična definicija inovacij naj bi namreč predpostavila, da podjetje samo znotraj podjetja oblikuje

(10)

ideje in razvija nove proizvode, jih nato proizvede in trži. Model odprtih inovacij v nasprotju s to 'vertikalno' paradigmo, kot pravi Chesbrough (2004, 2006) stremi k temu, da podjetje namerno uporablja tako notranje kot tudi zunanje prvine pri oblikovanju idej in proizvodov in se nato, ko je proizvod oblikovan, pri trženju ravno tako opre na vse razpoložljive prvine, notranje in zunanje. Meje podjetja tako v modelu odprtih inovacij niso jasno začrtane, pač pa model predpostavlja prehajanje informacij navznoter in navzven. Poroznost mej, ki pa je pravzaprav namerna, je ravno tako eden ključnih ele- mentov modela, saj omogoča razvoj na podlagi notranjih in zunanjih informacij, idej, znanja, hkrati pa omogoča tudi prenos idej, informacij in znanja navzven. Slovenija, kot majhno in odprto gospodarstvo, v katerem izvoz predstavlja dobre tri četrtine BDP (SURS, 2014) in je tako močno vpeto v mednarodne proizvodne verige, raste predvsem s pomočjo izvozno- usmerjenega modela rasti. Tako je za slovenski razvoj inovativnost ključnega pomena, saj mora država vedno več vlagati v razvoj lastnih inovativnih proizvodov in storitev, s katerimi bo prodirala na globalne trge končnih proizvodov in si na drugi strani tudi povečevala delež v globalno ustvarjeni dodani vrednosti.

Prispevek nadgrajuje pretekle raziskave in poveže model odprtega inoviranja s prevladujočim modelom inoviranja, kjer se kot ključni dejavnik omenjajo oddelki namenjeni raziskavam in razvoju, njihova organizacija in strateška pozicija znotraj podjetja ter sredstva namenjena raziskavam in razvoju. Vprašanje je namreč, če so podjetja, ki v večji meri izvajajo aktivnosti odprtega inoviranja, tudi tista podjetja, ki že uporabljajo model odprtih inovacij kot prevladujoč model inoviranja.

Z namenom preučitve komplementarnosti obstoječega modela inoviranja in modela odprtih inovacij je bila v sep- tembru 2014 izvedena anketa o razširjenosti uporabe trinajstih aktivnosti, ki so opredeljene v modelu odprtih inovacij (Chesbrough, 2003), o njihovi prihodnji uporabi ter o organizacijskih značilnostih podjetij. Podjetja so podala tudi številne druge informacije o inovacijski dejavnosti v podjetju (vprašalnik iz Redek in ostali, 2010). Vprašalnik je zajel značilnosti de- lovanja oddelka raziskav (ali obstaja, kaj so njegove naloge), podal informacije o višini izdatkov za raziskave in razvoj ter pomenu in percepciji vloge trošenja za raziskave in razvoj v smislu krepitve konkurenčnih prednosti. Respondenti so orisali tudi uspešnost uvajanja različnih tipov procesnih in proizvodnih inovacij ter značilnosti (naprednost) obeh tipov in- ovacij.

Na podlagi odgovorov 222 slovenskih podjetij so podjetja z Wardovo analizo skupin najprej razdeljena v tri skupine glede (intenzivnosti) izvajanja aktivnosti odprtega inoviranja. V prvi skupini je 40 podjetij oziroma 19,4 odstotkov vseh opa- zovanih podjetij, ki ne izvajajo oziroma zelo redko izvajajo dejavnosti opredeljene z modelom odprtih inovacij. V drugi skupini je 83 podjetij oziroma 40,3 odstotkov vseh opazovanih podjetij, ki v omejenem obsegu in manj pogosto izvajajo dejavnosti, opredeljene z modelom odprtih inovacij. V tretji skupini pa je prav tako 83 podjetij, ki izvaja večinoma vse omenjene dejavnosti in bolj intenzivno kot v drugi skupini in jih v skladu s smernicami domače in tuje literature (npr. Ches- brough, 2003, Rangus 2014) lahko imenujemo »odprti inovatorji«. Glede na intenzivnost izvajanja aktivnosti odprtega in- oviranja so podjetja v nadaljevanju obravnavana ločeno po skupinah.

V nadaljevanju smo razlike v povprečnih vrednostih ostalih inovacijskih dejavnosti in elementov genetskega materiala primerjali s Tukey-jevo metodo (Tukey, 1949). Podatki kažejo, da imajo podjetja, ki izvajajo aktivnosti opredeljene z mod- elom odprtih inovacij, v povprečju tudi bolj pogosto razvite oddelke raziskav in razvoja. Ti oddelki imajo hkrati tudi strateško vlogo v podjetju. Ta skupina podjetij nameni tudi večji delež prihodkov raziskavam in razvoju. Tako so podjetja, ki so tudi sicer bolj aktivna na področju inovacij, tudi bolj aktivna na področju odprtega inoviranja, in so informacije pridobljene bodisi znotraj ali zunaj podjetja vir njihovih konkurenčnih prednosti. Primerjava uspešnosti med podjetji v treh skupinah pa kaže, da so razlike med drugo in tretjo skupino majhne in neznačilne, so pa podjetja v obeh skupinah bolj uspešna pri produktni in procesni inovativnosti od podjetij v prvi skupini. »Odprti inovatorji« imajo tudi drugačno organizacijsko struk- turo in razvijajo odnose zaposlenih in vodstva do inovacij tako, da s tem spodbujajo oziroma podpirajo tudi aktivnosti s področja odprtih inovacij. Poleg tretje skupine to v veliki meri velja tudi za podjetja v drugi skupini, predvsem kar se tiče odnosa zaposlenih in njihovega nagrajevanja. To pa ne drži za podjetja v prvi skupini.

Tako prispevek ponuja eno prvih raziskav povezave odprtega inoviranja s prevladujočim modelom inovacijske de- javnosti v podjetjih in preučuje razlike v uspešnosti skupin glede produktnih kot tudi procesnih inovacij. Rezultati kažejo jasno povezavo razvitosti oddelka raziskav in razvoja na uvajanje modela odprtega inoviranja. Hkrati pa kažejo, da sicer za uspešnost podjetij pri produktnih in procesnih inovacijah, niso potrebne vse dejavnosti odprtega inoviranja. Oba modela se na vzorcu slovenskih podjetij celo komplementarno dopolnjujeta.

(11)

REFERENCES

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Im- perative for Creating and Profiting from Technology.

Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing Open Innovation:

Chess and Poker. Research-Technology Management, 47, 1 (January), 23-26.

Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Innovation: A New Para- digm for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (ed.).

Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta- analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.

Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 555-590.

Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of rad- ical and incremental innovations: An empirical analy- sis. Management Science, 32, 1422-1433.

Eurostat (2012). Retrieved: 2.4.2015 on the webpage http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/203647/20 3701/CIS_Survey_form_2010.pdf/b9f2c70e-0c46- 4f82-abeb-c7661f1f2166.

Farčnik, D., Redek, T., & Trobec, D. (2014). Learning of Slovenian firms through open innovation. In: Prašnikar, J.(ed.). Industrial policy in retrospective. Ljubljana:

Časnik Finance, 241-258.

Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., & Yeaple, S. R. (2004). Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. American Eco- nomic Review, 94, 300-316.

Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. (1981). Organizational in- novation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of tech- nological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 689 - 713.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conserva- tive and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1-25.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary the- ory of economic change. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

Prašnikar, J. (ed.) (2010). The role of intangible assets in exiting the crisis. Ljubljana: Časnik Finance, 187-202.

Prašnikar, J., Redek, T., Drenkovska, M., & Voje, D. (2012).

Innovation in Slovenia as indicator of companies’ ge- netic material potential. In Prašnikar, J. (ed.). Compar- ing companies’ success in dealing with external shocks: the case of the Western Balkans, Mediter- ranean countries and core European countries. Ljubl- jana: Časnik Finance: 363-388.

Prašnikar, J., Redek, T., & Drenkovska, M. (2011). Method- ological challenges of measuring intangible capital in developing countries: the case of innovation activity.

Paper presented at the 2011 International conference

for entrepreneurship, innovation and regional devel- opment, Skopje, 5-7 May 2011.

Pustovrh, A. (2014). Odprti inovacijski sistemi in njihovi učinki na strategije rasti malih in srednje velikih pod- jetij. Doktorska disertacija, forthcoming.

Rangus, K. (2014). Nagnjenost k odprtemu inoviranju:

razvoj konstrukta, determinante in rezultati. Dok- torska disertacija. Ljubljana: Ekonomska fakulteta.

Rangus, K., & Drnovšek, M. (2013). Open innovation in Slovenia: A comparative analysis of different firm sizes. Economic and Business Review, 15 (3), 175–196.

Redek, T., Kopriva, G., Mihelič, N., & Simič, M. (2010). In- vestments in intangible activities: innovation in the Slovenian manufacturing sector. In: Prašnikar, J. (ed.).

The role of intangible assets in exiting the crisis. Ljubl- jana: Časnik Finance, 2010, 149-159.

Stiglitz, E. J., & Greenwald, C. B. (2014). Creating a Learn- ing Society. New York: CUP.

SURS (Statistični urad Republike Slovenije) (2015). SI-Stat.

Online database. Retrived 12.3. 2015 on webpage:

http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Ekonomsko/Ek onomsko.asp#03.

Tukey, J. (1949). Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance. Biometrics, 5 (2), 99-114.

Von Hippel, E. (1988). Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press.

World Economic Forum (2008). Global competitiveness report 2008. Geneva: WEF. Retrived 10. 3. 2015 on webpage http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCR08/

Slovenia.pdf

Reference

POVEZANI DOKUMENTI

Among many mag- azines in the field of management DRMJ Journal is slowly gaining its place with a clear focus on theo- retical and practical perspectives on (dynamic) rela-

The goal of the research: after adaptation of the model of integration of intercultural compe- tence in the processes of enterprise international- ization, to prepare the

Such criteria are the success of the managed enterprises (e.g. profitabil- ity, social responsibility) as we claim that it is the ut- most responsibility of managers; the attainment

Within the empirical part, the author conducts research and discusses management within Slovenian enterprises: how much of Slovenian managers’ time is devoted to manage

The research attempts to reveal which type of organisational culture is present within the enterprise, and whether the culture influences successful business performance.. Therefore,

– Traditional language training education, in which the language of in- struction is Hungarian; instruction of the minority language and litera- ture shall be conducted within

A single statutory guideline (section 9 of the Act) for all public bodies in Wales deals with the following: a bilingual scheme; approach to service provision (in line with

The article presents the results of the research on development of health literacy factors among members of the Slovenian and Italian national minorities in the Slovenian-Italian